Why would conservative and libertarian be considered the same thing?

[richardhutnik]

Mr Khan said:

richardhutnik said:

insomniac17 said:

richardhutnik said:
I think he dismissed the anarchist side, because that is an entirely different issue. One could say he dismissed it in a non-constructive manner, and possibly derogatory, but I do see it as a separate issue.

And I would say there are conservative libertarians, with the likes of Ron Paul being pretty close to that.

But even talking about the Libertarian Party, there is still an anarchist movement. Why do you say it is a different issue?

Ron Paul would be an excellent example. Andrew Napolitano would be an example of a constitutionalist, although some believe that he is an anarcho-capitalist.

I was agree to some degree with the original video.  Libertarians believe there is a need for at least SOME government, while anarchists want none.  Because of this, the nature of the debate is different and focus.  A major reason for this, is to try to debate whether or not there is a need for any government gets to be pretty lengthy and has more fundamental issues.  And here, it doesn't relate to whether or not Libertarians and Conservatives are the same thing.  That is why I had been trying to position away.  I would say, it is worth discussing, but please start it in another thread.  I definitely would like to see a Libertarian debate an Anarchist, which would put the Libertarian in the big government role in comparison.

The key breach seems to be property. Libertarians believe in private property (whereby any person can own as much property as they can legally obtain), while anarchists believe only in personal property (what you need for your daily life is yours and no more). Anarchists absolutely reject the concept of rents, while libertarians think that rent can be a thing. However, there needs to be a state aparatus to enforce private property contracts, whereas we can see in medieval anarcho-syndicalism that a state apparatus is not needed in, say, a small farmer community where the farmers have their land, their crops, and their tools, and deal them directly to the tradesmen who may make or maintain tools, etc. In a world where you use only what you need, there's no need to have an aparatus to "enforce" the system, only to stop outright theft, which could be enforced through individual and communal action, whereas how could a landlord enforce the rent in an apartment complex without, ultimately, the police to be able to come by and chuck out deadbeat tenants at the end of the day?

I think it is a bit more than this, because I do consider anarcho-capitalists anarchists, and they believe in property also, even owning the means of production.  What is normal for anarchists is what you said though, where they don't respect anything beyond what one has personally, as legitimate, and you will see these types not harming people but damaging corporate proerty.

I believe the key divider is actually the belief in the need for government for something.  Anarchists don't.  Libertarians end up being pragmatic and say that practicality requires some government, but as little as possible.